Gabe Newell hates DX10

[tuteja1986]

I can still remember the hate for Windows ME , Windows XP :! usual stuff :! crisis , Alan Wake and Farcry 2 will lead us to DX10. All of them have new engine that real advantage of DX10 instead of tacking this on in the last moment. Anyways I think Gabe needs to shh up and release Half life episode 2 because its take the same amount of time to develop these 2 episode that has take the same time for Bioshock to be developed.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I still just don't get why developers don't dump DX and its idiocy for OpenGL. id and John Carmack (bless his nerdy voice) have shown it to be extremely capable as a graphics API, not only in delivering beautiful effects, but great performance. id is best known for cleanly-coded and smooth-running games with cutting-edge graphics. As advances are made, there's no need to program for new APIs and platforms - you just adopt the same code for all platforms. In contrast, almost all DX games out today run like crap and are filled with graphical bugs.

In conclusion, I hate microsoft.

You sure it's not just your 6800GS? hehe. I'm willing to bet your 6800GS can't push the pixels fast enough rather than almost all DX games today running like crap. My friends 6800GT is having a helluva time with some of the newer games.

Not trying to sound hardware snobbish or anything, but get yourself a X1950XT or 7900GTx or better, and I'm sure you'll change your tune about DX running like crap

As for hating Microsoft, that is pretty much pointless. They rule the PC computing planet. Like it or not.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I still just don't get why developers don't dump DX and its idiocy for OpenGL. id and John Carmack (bless his nerdy voice) have shown it to be extremely capable as a graphics API, not only in delivering beautiful effects, but great performance. id is best known for cleanly-coded and smooth-running games with cutting-edge graphics. As advances are made, there's no need to program for new APIs and platforms - you just adopt the same code for all platforms. In contrast, almost all DX games out today run like crap and are filled with graphical bugs.

In conclusion, I hate microsoft.

ROFL.

The best part about this is it sounds like you're talking about the terrifyingly horrible Doom 3 engine, which is the lone engine i've felt true dislike for since it's inception.
Mainly because on games using it, it feels sluggish (regardless of high fps), clunky, & indoors ALWAYS LOOKS THE SAME.

If you consider that to be the example of good gaming...good god, help us all.

 

[Dribble]

I suspect that graphics companies haven't got the time to produce a whizzy DX9 renderer and another equally whizzy DX10 one. Hence your choice is either concentrate on DX10 and write a basic DX9 one (call of Juraz), or concentrate on DX9 and add a few DX10 tweaks (bioshock).

The other factor is at the moment people are trying to write one engine to use on both the console and PC (e.g. bioshock). The current consoles are DX9 so consequently most cross platform games will be DX9, with the odd easy to implement DX10 feature for PC users thrown in.

The exception might be crysis which hopefully will have a really flashy DX9 and DX10 renderers ...

 

[Modelworks]

The reason developers don't just drop directx and go opengl is because most of the current crop of programmers only know directx.
Its a choice of , do I re-learn most of what I know about graphics programming, or do I stick with what I know and make the best of it ?

The benefit of opengl is its multi-platform , it also works on almost any hardware.
Opengl allows flexibility .
If your writing a game engine and you want to support pixel shader 3.0 you can do that and someone who is using a pixel shader 2.0 card can still run the game.
What would happen though is the driver for your video card would be responsible for emulating the 3.0 support.
Depending on how well the driver works the game may or may not display correctly with the 2.0 card.

This is what MS was trying to avoid with DX. They wanted to make it so that developers did not have to concern themselves with what features a card
supported and just write the game for a standard like dx9 and any video card supporting that would run it properly.

The problem with that approach is that its all or nothing. You either comply and can run the game , or you can't. If the standard changes like dx 10.1 you are stuck
with a card that is now useless with all future dx 10.1 games even if your card was a really fast dx10 part.

As much as video cards cost now, I think its both a wasteful and a ignorant way to do a graphics api.
To completely ban a card from a dx version because it lacks a feature that may be no more than better lighting, sharper textures seems wrong.

Let the end user decide if whatever feature is important enough for them to upgrade , not MS.


A quick quote on how opengl handles hardware.

If the hardware consists only of an addressable framebuffer,
then OpenGL must be implemented almost entirely on the host CPU. More typically,
the graphics hardware may comprise varying degrees of graphics acceleration,
from a raster subsystem capable of rendering two-dimensional lines and polygons
to sophisticated floating-point processors capable of transforming and computing
on geometric data. The OpenGL implementor?s task is to provide the CPU
software interface while dividing the work for each OpenGL command between
the CPU and the graphics hardware. This division must be tailored to the available
graphics hardware to obtain optimum performance in carrying out OpenGL calls.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Dribble
I
The other factor is at the moment people are trying to write one engine to use on both the console and PC (e.g. bioshock). The current consoles are DX9 so consequently most cross platform games will be DX9, with the odd easy to implement DX10 feature for PC users thrown in.

The only console that is dx9 is the xbox 360
The others ps3 and wii both use OpenGl.

From a developers point of view.
Opengl makes more sense.
It runs on everything from win, linux, mac, xbox, wii, ps3, ds.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Wait and see guys. The majority of PC gamers don't have DX10 hardware, hence no real DX10 games. Once games start really utilizing DX10 (i.e. built from the ground up to support DX10), your opinions will change.

How will developers justify the expense of developing a full featured dx10 render path when only a small minority can make use of it? With the state of the PC gaming industry and its inflated budgets, they can't.

Microsoft has created a chicken and egg scenario. In the past, they chose to speed adoption of the latest Direct3D standard by making it available to previous OSes. Once the majority of developers saw this precedent, they moved to developing only for directX as it was available on all platforms (all the big ones at the time, anyway). This time, Microsoft decided to use it as a marketing bullet point for their new OS.

Now you've got guys like old newell here that put all his eggs in the microsoft basket, anticipating that Microsoft would at least keep DirectX platform neutral across the windows standard. Whoops, MS needs to give people a reason to buy their new OS so they decide to break with past precident and pass the buck onto you instead.

If he had any foresight he would already have a OpenGL render path and he could just bolt on the new extensions and give the new features to all his customers...but like many other developers they dumped that to save some time and money. Now its screwing them. Thats why he's whining.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Valve's hardware survey is always amusing to look at. Its depressing when you realize that the average CSS player is running with something in the 5200 to 6600GT range. Ironically, its usually these people who claim that console games are graphically superior to their PC counterparts. Always gives me a laugh, anyway.

Several people in here are dead right now. With such small penetration of DX10 hardware, there isn't much point to code from the ground up for a DX10 engine yet. This will change without a doubt and in a few short years, DX10 will be the dominant API.

I would like to see more development in OGL though. Its free. Its cross platform. I would definitely love to see more games being released with Linux versions. Even if you have to buy the Windows version, then mail a card to the publisher to get the native linux version, its still a step in the right direction.

A flight to OpenGL may be the developers response to the scism microsoft has created in direct3d. What they want (One API with the new features that supports XP and Vista) is available through OpenGL. A linux or MacOS version isn't to difficult to accomplish (comparatively speaking) once that happens.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: niggles
first off I installed bioshock on both XP and Vista and I did in fact like the look better on Vista. The Filtering looked nicer, although I have to say that the particle effect differences in DX9 compared to DX10 weren't huge, but they were a lot more seamless under DX10. Performance wise it was waaaay better under xp which is why I installed it on both rather than run it in compatability mode under vista.

Next up, I'm guessing everyone has heard that DX10.1 is coming out around the same time as SP1 for Vista some time around March? Apparantly it will require all new hardware... well I'm sorry, I'm not buying it... they make a minor change to Direct X and I'm supposed to by a couple of new GPUS? I don't think so.

1) the game does not run in "compatability mode"
2) DX10.1 from what it looks like to me and what I've gathered, is a software side change. It doesn't affect the hardware since all hardware that conforms to DX10 specs can do 4xaa and 32bit floating point. Therefore it will just become standard practice and required to impliment 4xaa and 32bit floating point in the engine.

Anyone have any comment on this? I didn't make this up but have been hearing things about it being unrelated to HW at all. If this is wrong don't shoot me...I read this on another forum.

 

[Chesebert]

I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Chesebert
I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

theirs nothing really wrong with vista, SP1 is need as it was need so bad with XP because of the doom of broadband. The problem is trashy developer that can't integrate DX10 efficiently. Anyways Crysis DX10 and everyone will be saying ... "DX10 is okay".

 

[Chesebert]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Chesebert
I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

theirs nothing really wrong with vista, SP1 is need as it was need so bad with XP because of the doom of broadband. The problem is trashy developer that can't integrate DX10 efficiently. Anyways Crysis DX10 and everyone will be saying ... "DX10 is okay".

well. easy for you to say. half of my programs doesn't work with vista and I am not about to spend another $1k on software upgrades. My network is half as fast under vista vs xp, my games runs slower in vista, I couldn't get my emu sound card to work, my slim server is not working properly, etc. The whole system just feels slower than XP. I lived with vista for a couple month and I am getting out of the vista camp for now.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Chesebert

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Chesebert
I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

theirs nothing really wrong with vista, SP1 is need as it was need so bad with XP because of the doom of broadband. The problem is trashy developer that can't integrate DX10 efficiently. Anyways Crysis DX10 and everyone will be saying ... "DX10 is okay".

well. easy for you to say. half of my programs doesn't work with vista and I am not about to spend another $1k on software upgrades. My network is half as fast under vista vs xp, my games runs slower in vista, I couldn't get my emu sound card to work, my slim server is not working properly, etc. The whole system just feels slower than XP. I lived with vista for a couple month and I am getting out of the vista camp for now.

There's 5 people that use Vista and like it over XP for every 1 who tried it and hated it.

 

[speckedhoncho]

I took 3D Graphics Rendering using OGL examples in college, but the book is 5+ years old. Does DX have the ability to to GPU instruction programming that OGL doesn't?

If the hardware consists only of an addressable framebuffer,
then OpenGL must be implemented almost entirely on the host CPU. More typically,
the graphics hardware may comprise varying degrees of graphics acceleration,
from a raster subsystem capable of rendering two-dimensional lines and polygons
to sophisticated floating-point processors capable of transforming and computing
on geometric data. The OpenGL implementor?s task is to provide the CPU
software interface while dividing the work for each OpenGL command between
the CPU and the graphics hardware. This division must be tailored to the available
graphics hardware to obtain optimum performance in carrying out OpenGL calls.

Can OGL commands be compiled into shader instructions directly executable on the GPU?

Since the shaders and GPU instruction set are matched to DX, does this mean that OGL can't run its implementation?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: speckedhoncho
I took 3D Graphics Rendering using OGL examples in college, but the book is 5+ years old. Does DX have the ability to to GPU instruction programming that OGL doesn't?

No.
Its simply not possible to do something in dx that can't be done in opengl because of extensions.
But there are things that opengl can do with even the current hardware that dx can't.
Like provide dx10 features in windows xp.
http://www.opengl.org/discussi...get_topic;f=3;t=015388

Can OGL commands be compiled into shader instructions directly executable on the GPU?

Yes

Since the shaders and GPU instruction set are matched to DX, does this mean that OGL can't run its implementation?

Not at all.


The forum on opengl
http://www.opengl.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi

 

[Griswold]

What?! Fatass Newell is still alive? I thought he died of fatty degeneration of the heart - the whiney bitch. I guess the day we wont hear him whine about something, is the day we know for sure he bit the dust.

 

[Staples]

Part of the problem is high prices for performance. A decent DX10 card that can play at decent frame rates is $500.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The reason developers don't just drop directx and go opengl is because most of the current crop of programmers only know directx.
Its a choice of , do I re-learn most of what I know about graphics programming, or do I stick with what I know and make the best of it ?

Open GL is really primitive too. DX takes care of many of the functions you would have to write from scratch in OGL. Even Carmack mentions this as a reason that so few people use it. It is much easier to write an engine in DX than it is OGL. The advange is that you get to optimize OGL better so it possibly render faster however with current versions of DX letting you write your own shaders, the performance advantage of OGL is becoming obsolete.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Way back then when the Xbox was released MS has already given a strong hint to kill off PC gaming, otherwise there will be no Xbox or its successor...And now the devs finally realized what is happening? Cry me a river.

 

[speckedhoncho]

ModelWorks:

Thanks for the nudge. I want to learn shader programming and learn how developers orchestrate the sequence of transformation and shading (T&L reference isn't too out of date hopefully) with the newer GPU instruction-based architectures.

Since I am running Ubuntu and my Windows setup is my living room media pc, I'd prefer the OGL route. I'll see what libraries the package manager reveals.

Yippie Cayeh!

 

[speckedhoncho]

I wonder if some dev groups have secretly tried to test DX10 on XP but the performance is still terrible.

Either Nvidia's drivers don't like Vista or DX10; if it's both, then Gabe is definitely right in despising MS's & Nvidia's progress. MS should allow beta testing on DX10 in XP to disprove (or prove) his point: DX10 sucks either way.

If DX10 is only performance drain and not logically faulty, then MS has earned the responsibility and right to release SP1 and let AMD & Nvidia see what improvements they've made.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Way back then when the Xbox was released MS has already given a strong hint to kill off PC gaming, otherwise there will be no Xbox or its successor...And now the devs finally realized what is happening? Cry me a river.

No way, they aren't directly trying to kill PC gaming at all. Devs just get so damn lazy when it comes to having to do more work or doing something new.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Chesebert

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Chesebert
I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

theirs nothing really wrong with vista, SP1 is need as it was need so bad with XP because of the doom of broadband. The problem is trashy developer that can't integrate DX10 efficiently. Anyways Crysis DX10 and everyone will be saying ... "DX10 is okay".

well. easy for you to say. half of my programs doesn't work with vista and I am not about to spend another $1k on software upgrades. My network is half as fast under vista vs xp, my games runs slower in vista, I couldn't get my emu sound card to work, my slim server is not working properly, etc. The whole system just feels slower than XP. I lived with vista for a couple month and I am getting out of the vista camp for now.

There's 5 people that use Vista and like it over XP for every 1 who tried it and hated it.

Only here on AT & other enthusiest-forums ... most people I talk to who've used Vista hate it & also I've wiped it off of approx 50 of my customers PC's so far.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Chesebert

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Chesebert
I am glad he hates DX10 because I hate vista, so I have no interest in DX10 whatsoever; If MS comes out with SP2 for vista I will reconsider

theirs nothing really wrong with vista, SP1 is need as it was need so bad with XP because of the doom of broadband. The problem is trashy developer that can't integrate DX10 efficiently. Anyways Crysis DX10 and everyone will be saying ... "DX10 is okay".

well. easy for you to say. half of my programs doesn't work with vista and I am not about to spend another $1k on software upgrades. My network is half as fast under vista vs xp, my games runs slower in vista, I couldn't get my emu sound card to work, my slim server is not working properly, etc. The whole system just feels slower than XP. I lived with vista for a couple month and I am getting out of the vista camp for now.

There's 5 people that use Vista and like it over XP for every 1 who tried it and hated it.

Prove it, where are your facts, proof etc to backup your statement?

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

There's 5 people that use Vista and like it over XP for every 1 who tried it and hated it.

Prove it, where are your facts, proof etc to backup your statement?

I agree.

But he can't prove it. Its just made up.

Many people I know have been rejecting Vista at this point (at least until SP1), but I'm not going to pluck random figures out of the air to try to convince anyone.